Orwell prize council says winning article contained unattributed material and £2,000 award has not yet been returned The Independent columnist Johann Hari is facing fresh accusations of plagiarism from the Orwell prize committee over an article that won him the prestigious award in 2008 . Hari earlier this month said he stood by the Orwell prize-winning articles in a lengthy apology published by the Independent, but handed back the award on 14 September “as an act of contrition for errors I made elsewhere”. However, the high-profile columnist has not returned the £2,000 prize money from the 2008 award, the Orwell prize council said on Tuesday. “The council concluded that the article contained inaccuracies and conflated different parts of someone else’s story (specifically, a report in Der Spiegel),” the Orwell prize council said in a statement. “The council ruled that the substantial use of unattributed and unacknowledged material did not meet the standards expected of Orwell prize-winning journalism.” Hari handed back the Orwell prize after an internal investigation by the Independent founder and former editor Andreas Whittam Smith. He said in his apology a fortnight ago: “Even though I stand by the articles which won the George Orwell prize, I am returning it as an act of contrition for the errors I made elsewhere, in my interviews.” Hari apologised for plagiarising the work of others to improve interviews and for editing the Wikipedia entries of people he had clashed with, using the pseudonym David Rose, “in ways that were juvenile or malicious”. He admitted calling “one of them antisemitic and homophobic, and the other a drunk”. He is taking unpaid leave of absence from the paper until 2012 and is to undertake a journalism training course. The Orwell prize council said it decided to revoke Hari’s award in July, but declined to make the decision public because the Independent’s investigation was ongoing. The Independent had “prohibited” Hari from responding to claims about his work during the investigation, the council added. “The council is delighted to be able to put this difficult episode behind it finally, and get on with the important business of running the prizes and promoting the values of George Orwell into the future,” said Bill Hamilton, the acting chair of the council of the Orwell prize. Annalena McAfee, Albert Scardino and Sir John Tusa – the judges from 2008 – have decided not to re-award Hari’s prize. •
Continue reading …Orwell prize council says winning article contained unattributed material and £2,000 award has not yet been returned The Independent columnist Johann Hari is facing fresh accusations of plagiarism from the Orwell prize committee over an article that won him the prestigious award in 2008 . Hari earlier this month said he stood by the Orwell prize-winning articles in a lengthy apology published by the Independent, but handed back the award on 14 September “as an act of contrition for errors I made elsewhere”. However, the high-profile columnist has not returned the £2,000 prize money from the 2008 award, the Orwell prize council said on Tuesday. “The council concluded that the article contained inaccuracies and conflated different parts of someone else’s story (specifically, a report in Der Spiegel),” the Orwell prize council said in a statement. “The council ruled that the substantial use of unattributed and unacknowledged material did not meet the standards expected of Orwell prize-winning journalism.” Hari handed back the Orwell prize after an internal investigation by the Independent founder and former editor Andreas Whittam Smith. He said in his apology a fortnight ago: “Even though I stand by the articles which won the George Orwell prize, I am returning it as an act of contrition for the errors I made elsewhere, in my interviews.” Hari apologised for plagiarising the work of others to improve interviews and for editing the Wikipedia entries of people he had clashed with, using the pseudonym David Rose, “in ways that were juvenile or malicious”. He admitted calling “one of them antisemitic and homophobic, and the other a drunk”. He is taking unpaid leave of absence from the paper until 2012 and is to undertake a journalism training course. The Orwell prize council said it decided to revoke Hari’s award in July, but declined to make the decision public because the Independent’s investigation was ongoing. The Independent had “prohibited” Hari from responding to claims about his work during the investigation, the council added. “The council is delighted to be able to put this difficult episode behind it finally, and get on with the important business of running the prizes and promoting the values of George Orwell into the future,” said Bill Hamilton, the acting chair of the council of the Orwell prize. Annalena McAfee, Albert Scardino and Sir John Tusa – the judges from 2008 – have decided not to re-award Hari’s prize. •
Continue reading …Former Ukraine PM back in court on charges of abusing power after case was adjourned due to western pressure The much-criticised trial of Ukraine’s former prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko noisily resumed on Tuesday, following a surprise break, amid pressure from the west . Dozens of Tymoshenko’s supporters gathered outside the court, attempting to push their way into the hall, according to local news reports. EU officials have called on President Viktor Yanukovych to put an end to the trial, which they see as a politically motivated move to silence the Ukrainian leader’s chief rival. Ukrainian officials have denied the case is part of a “witch-hunt”. Tymoshenko has been on trial since June on charges of abusing her power while prime minister, when she signed a gas deal with Moscow in 2009 that left Ukraine paying sky-high prices for Russian gas. In August she was sent to a Kiev jail for allegedly disrupting the court during the rowdy trial. The EU has warned Yanukovych that his attempts to finalise a free trade agreement with the bloc would be put in jeopardy if the case went forward. Meanwhile, Ukraine has been trying to repair relations with Russia instead, with Yanukovych flying to Moscow at the weekend in an attempt to renegotiate Tymoshenko’s gas deal. He said “significant” progress had been made. The case has polarised Ukraine and yet again split the country between its western and Russian leanings. The court abruptly adjourned two weeks ago as western pressure mounted. “During the two-week break not only we, her defence, but the global community, which is interested in the case, understood that there are no bases to suggest crimes in the actions of Yulia Tymoshenko,” her lawyer Yury Sukhov told journalists in Kiev. Her other lawyer, Sergei Vasenko, said: “We understand that the case depends on the will of the president of Ukraine. In two or three hours we will know what decision Viktor Yanukovych will take today, and we will know if Ukraine is going on the European path of development or if it will remain in the same state of democracy in which it is found today.” Yulia Tymoshenko Ukraine European Union Viktor Yanukovych Europe Miriam Elder guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Counsel for Raffaele Sollecito compares her to cartoon character Jessica Rabbit, saying she was ‘not bad – just drawn that way’ There was “no trace” of either Amanda Knox or her former Italian boyfriend in the room where Meredith Kercher was murdered, a court hearing their appeal was told on Tuesday. Knox, who was depicted as a witch at the previous hearing, was more like Jessica Rabbit in the 1988 animated film Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, according to one of her lawyers. “She can be seen as a man-eater. But in fact she was a faithful woman in love,” said the first defence lawyer to sum up before the judges and jury who will decide if Knox and her ex-boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, are freed. Giulia Bongiorno, counsel for Sollecito, quoted the cartoon vamp: “I’m not bad. I’m just drawn that way.” And jabbing a finger at the prosecutors, she said: “They drew her that way”. Her brief foray into the world of animated cartoon was the prelude to a vigorous assault on the prosecution case in which she came within a hair’s breadth of claiming that, like Roger Rabbit, her client and his former girlfriend had been framed. In 2009, a lower court decided Sollecito and Knox murdered Kercher in a drug-fuelled sex game with a third man, Rudy Guede. Yet, said Bongiorno, ‘in the room of the crime, there are no traces of either Amanda or Raffaele. This is the absolute truth’. The only alleged evidence was a trace of Sollecito’s DNA on Kercher’s bra clasp, and that was evidence “torn apart by the experts’ report”. In June, two Rome university professors appointed by the court to review the forensic findings had reported the DNA could have got there by contamination. The bra clasp lay at the scene of the crime for more than six weeks. The experts also reported that DNA attributed to Kercher on the alleged murder weapon was not necessarily hers. The knife bore signs that it had been handled by Sollecito and Knox, but was in the young Italian’s kitchen and likely therefore to have been handled by both. As a result of the experts’ report, Bongiorno said: “Nothing connects Raffaele Sollecito to this crime … The few indications were to do with Amanda Knox and have been transferred to him. There are people who acquire a family along with a girlfriend. He acquired a crime.” But, added his lawyer, there was “nothing on Amanda either”. Sollecito was a 23-year-old computer science student at the university of Perugia when he was arrested for the murder. His lawyer warned the court against being misled by the prosecution’s emphasis on the number of judges who had endorsed its case. A footprint in Kercher’s bedroom was ascribed to her client and that version was accepted as fact by judges up to and including Italy’s highest appeals court. It then turned out to belong to Rudy Guede, she said. Amanda Knox Italy Meredith Kercher Europe United States John Hooper guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Alan Mullery was in charge of Brighton and Terry Venables was at the Palace helm when these clubs began their feud Most of football’s great rivalries involve clubs thrown together either by geography – Arsenal and Tottenham, say, or Dundee United and, er, Dundee – or by years of high-profile, high-intensity competition for the game’s biggest prizes – which explains Liverpool ongoing ding-dong with Manchester United, or Real Madrid’s with Barcelona. The rivalry between Crystal Palace and Brighton falls into neither of those categories. While Croydon and Brighton are handily linked by road and rail, football’s hardcore rarely make an easy commute their first priority and Palace are not appreciably closer to the Seagulls than they are to Reading in the west, to Southend in the east, to Watford in the north or to any of the London clubs. They have played each other quite frequently — the Eagles’ first visit to the Amex Stadium on Tuesday night will be their 89th meeting — but Palace have played the considerably more local Millwall four times more and don’t really hate them any more than everyone else does, while Brighton have faced, for example, Leyton Orient more often. And neither can it be said that they have regularly spent seasons vying with each other for major honours. As it turns out, though, they did not need to: for these two clubs, once was enough. In June 1976 Palace appointed Terry Venables as manager. The following month Albion named Alan Mullery as their new manager. The pair were already fierce rivals, a situation that dated back exactly a decade to their time as team-mates at Tottenham. “I don’t really know how it started,” Mullery says now. “I think it was probably because I got the Tottenham captaincy before him. I’m sure Terry wanted to be captain but Bill Nicholson gave it to me and he was made vice-captain. I can’t really give you any other reason. But it was a friendly rivalry — we’ve never been enemies. We used to share a room together at Tottenham and I still bump into him occasionally.” Their two clubs had identical ambitions that year — both managers were expected to lead their clubs out of the Third Division at the first attempt. As it turns out, they both succeeded but such was the drama and discord along the way that by the summer of 1977 the two clubs had become irrevocable enemies. The first of five meetings that season came in October at the Goldstone Ground, where the teams drew 1-1. “They’ll be with us at the last, you’ll see,” said Mullery, whose Brighton side had topped the table going into the game. Play was briefly stopped when three smoke bombs were thrown on to the pitch, forcing Mullery to appeal to the crowd for calm. But the fun really got going when the teams were drawn together in the first round of the FA Cup. The first game, played on 20 November, was drawn 2-2. Rachid Harkouk, whom that Monday’s Guardian described as “part Moroccan, part Maltese” but who was born in Chelsea and went on to play for Algeria in the 1986 World Cup, came off the bench to score a remarkable equaliser for Palace. It was remarkable not only because of its quality — he dribbled past two men before scoring — but because it was his first appearance for the club and came days after the end of a two-month FA ban for being sent off twice in a single game for his Sunday league team, Pinner Gas. “Give them their due, they came for a draw, really worked hard for it and that’s what they got,” said Mullery, whose side had dominated much of the game. “I dare them to do it at Crystal Palace.” At Crystal Palace three days later Brighton dominated much of the game but Palace came for a draw, really worked hard for it and that’s what they got. The second replay, to be held at a neutral venue, was twice postponed because of bad weather and had been, said The Guardian, “prefaced by much verbal propaganda of the chest-thumping variety”. It was eventually played at Stamford Bridge on 6 December, and it was on this evening that the nascent rivalry between the teams was to be elevated to the now familiar level of bitterness. Paul Holder put Palace ahead in the 18th minute and soon afterwards Brighton had a goal disallowed because Peter Ward was adjudged to have handled — though Palace’s Jim Cannon later confessed that the striker had touched the ball only because he had shoved him into it. If that caused grumbles, what happened in the 78th minute provoked fury. Palace’s Barry Silkman fouled Chris Cattlin in the area and Brighton were awarded a penalty, which the future Manchester City manager, Brian Horton, converted. The referee, however, made him retake the kick because of encroachment — even though everybody agreed that the only players to have done any encroaching had been wearing Palace colours. This time Paul Hammond saved it. The game ended 1-0. At the final whistle Mullery approached the referee, Ron Challis, whose actions that night earned him the nickname “Challis of the Palace”. “I was angry but it wasn’t because we’d lost,” Mullery says. “It was because of the referee’s decision to force Brian Horton to retake the penalty. After the game I approached him and asked him why he had made that decision. He said it was because of encroachment, but it was Crystal Palace players who were encroaching, not Brighton players. It was a terrible decision.” Still furious, Mullery marched off the pitch. “As I was walking up the tunnel,” he says, “a load of boiling hot coffee was thrown over me by a Crystal Palace supporter. So I pulled a handful of change out of my pocket, threw it on the floor and shouted, ‘That’s all you’re worth, Crystal Palace!’ And I’d shout it at anybody who did that.” Mullery accompanied this gesture with some others involving his fingers, described in The Guardian as “none too polite signs”. Finally, he was led away by police. Mullery was fined £100 for bringing the game into disrepute and warned as to his future conduct. He wrote to the Palace chairman, Ray Bloye, to explain that his subsequent remark that the Palace team was “rubbish” had been misquoted. “I don’t think it was just the Cup run that started it off,” says Mullery, “I think it was the rivalry between their manager and me. That’s where the rivalry came about. Because we were in the same league, doing the same thing — trying to get into the first division at the same time. I used to find it very difficult to understand what their problem was. Portsmouth and Brighton are 20 miles apart, Arsenal and Tottenham are about three miles apart. When you’ve got clubs 45 miles apart it does sound a bit silly.” The clubs’ fifth and final meeting of the season came in March, when Palace won 3-1 at home with Harkouk scoring two Palace goals and creating the other in what the Guardian called “a display of uncontrolled manic aggression”. Richard Yallop, writing our match report, was so impressed with Venables’s tactical nurdlings in that game — an eyebrow-raising five of Brighton’s players were man-marked — that he decided this was “surely a man with the tactical nous to be a future England manager”. Such was Harkouk’s hex over Brighton that in one fixture the following season Venables played him even though he was injured, just to scare Mullery. Before the same match Mullery refused to announce his team until 2.45pm, just to scare Venables. They drew again. Though both teams went up that season, neither won the league — that was Mansfield’s privilege — and later that year Brighton, who had briefly been nicknamed the Dolphins, rechristened themselves the Seagulls, a direct avian response to Palace’s Eagles. After a season of consolidation in the Second Division the two teams, and their warring managers, battled for promotion again in 1978-79, and this time it was even closer. Brighton, whose transfer budget was more than double their rival’s, finished their season at the top of the Second Division table only for Palace to win a previously postponed game against Burnley the following weekend to pip them to the title by a point. Mullery later spent two seasons in charge of Palace, some achievement under Ron Noades’ trigger-happy chairmanship — Mullery was his sixth appointment in 20 months and Dave Bassett, who succeeded him in 1984, lasted only three days — but his appointment prompted fury and a short-lived boycott from fans. “By the time I got the job it was already long forgotten from my point of view,” he says now. “You’re the first person to ask me about it in the last 30 years.” Championship 2011-12 Crystal Palace Brighton & Hove Albion Championship Simon Burnton guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Alan Mullery was in charge of Brighton and Terry Venables was at the Palace helm when these clubs began their feud Most of football’s great rivalries involve clubs thrown together either by geography – Arsenal and Tottenham, say, or Dundee United and, er, Dundee – or by years of high-profile, high-intensity competition for the game’s biggest prizes – which explains Liverpool ongoing ding-dong with Manchester United, or Real Madrid’s with Barcelona. The rivalry between Crystal Palace and Brighton falls into neither of those categories. While Croydon and Brighton are handily linked by road and rail, football’s hardcore rarely make an easy commute their first priority and Palace are not appreciably closer to the Seagulls than they are to Reading in the west, to Southend in the east, to Watford in the north or to any of the London clubs. They have played each other quite frequently — the Eagles’ first visit to the Amex Stadium on Tuesday night will be their 89th meeting — but Palace have played the considerably more local Millwall four times more and don’t really hate them any more than everyone else does, while Brighton have faced, for example, Leyton Orient more often. And neither can it be said that they have regularly spent seasons vying with each other for major honours. As it turns out, though, they did not need to: for these two clubs, once was enough. In June 1976 Palace appointed Terry Venables as manager. The following month Albion named Alan Mullery as their new manager. The pair were already fierce rivals, a situation that dated back exactly a decade to their time as team-mates at Tottenham. “I don’t really know how it started,” Mullery says now. “I think it was probably because I got the Tottenham captaincy before him. I’m sure Terry wanted to be captain but Bill Nicholson gave it to me and he was made vice-captain. I can’t really give you any other reason. But it was a friendly rivalry — we’ve never been enemies. We used to share a room together at Tottenham and I still bump into him occasionally.” Their two clubs had identical ambitions that year — both managers were expected to lead their clubs out of the Third Division at the first attempt. As it turns out, they both succeeded but such was the drama and discord along the way that by the summer of 1977 the two clubs had become irrevocable enemies. The first of five meetings that season came in October at the Goldstone Ground, where the teams drew 1-1. “They’ll be with us at the last, you’ll see,” said Mullery, whose Brighton side had topped the table going into the game. Play was briefly stopped when three smoke bombs were thrown on to the pitch, forcing Mullery to appeal to the crowd for calm. But the fun really got going when the teams were drawn together in the first round of the FA Cup. The first game, played on 20 November, was drawn 2-2. Rachid Harkouk, whom that Monday’s Guardian described as “part Moroccan, part Maltese” but who was born in Chelsea and went on to play for Algeria in the 1986 World Cup, came off the bench to score a remarkable equaliser for Palace. It was remarkable not only because of its quality — he dribbled past two men before scoring — but because it was his first appearance for the club and came days after the end of a two-month FA ban for being sent off twice in a single game for his Sunday league team, Pinner Gas. “Give them their due, they came for a draw, really worked hard for it and that’s what they got,” said Mullery, whose side had dominated much of the game. “I dare them to do it at Crystal Palace.” At Crystal Palace three days later Brighton dominated much of the game but Palace came for a draw, really worked hard for it and that’s what they got. The second replay, to be held at a neutral venue, was twice postponed because of bad weather and had been, said The Guardian, “prefaced by much verbal propaganda of the chest-thumping variety”. It was eventually played at Stamford Bridge on 6 December, and it was on this evening that the nascent rivalry between the teams was to be elevated to the now familiar level of bitterness. Paul Holder put Palace ahead in the 18th minute and soon afterwards Brighton had a goal disallowed because Peter Ward was adjudged to have handled — though Palace’s Jim Cannon later confessed that the striker had touched the ball only because he had shoved him into it. If that caused grumbles, what happened in the 78th minute provoked fury. Palace’s Barry Silkman fouled Chris Cattlin in the area and Brighton were awarded a penalty, which the future Manchester City manager, Brian Horton, converted. The referee, however, made him retake the kick because of encroachment — even though everybody agreed that the only players to have done any encroaching had been wearing Palace colours. This time Paul Hammond saved it. The game ended 1-0. At the final whistle Mullery approached the referee, Ron Challis, whose actions that night earned him the nickname “Challis of the Palace”. “I was angry but it wasn’t because we’d lost,” Mullery says. “It was because of the referee’s decision to force Brian Horton to retake the penalty. After the game I approached him and asked him why he had made that decision. He said it was because of encroachment, but it was Crystal Palace players who were encroaching, not Brighton players. It was a terrible decision.” Still furious, Mullery marched off the pitch. “As I was walking up the tunnel,” he says, “a load of boiling hot coffee was thrown over me by a Crystal Palace supporter. So I pulled a handful of change out of my pocket, threw it on the floor and shouted, ‘That’s all you’re worth, Crystal Palace!’ And I’d shout it at anybody who did that.” Mullery accompanied this gesture with some others involving his fingers, described in The Guardian as “none too polite signs”. Finally, he was led away by police. Mullery was fined £100 for bringing the game into disrepute and warned as to his future conduct. He wrote to the Palace chairman, Ray Bloye, to explain that his subsequent remark that the Palace team was “rubbish” had been misquoted. “I don’t think it was just the Cup run that started it off,” says Mullery, “I think it was the rivalry between their manager and me. That’s where the rivalry came about. Because we were in the same league, doing the same thing — trying to get into the first division at the same time. I used to find it very difficult to understand what their problem was. Portsmouth and Brighton are 20 miles apart, Arsenal and Tottenham are about three miles apart. When you’ve got clubs 45 miles apart it does sound a bit silly.” The clubs’ fifth and final meeting of the season came in March, when Palace won 3-1 at home with Harkouk scoring two Palace goals and creating the other in what the Guardian called “a display of uncontrolled manic aggression”. Richard Yallop, writing our match report, was so impressed with Venables’s tactical nurdlings in that game — an eyebrow-raising five of Brighton’s players were man-marked — that he decided this was “surely a man with the tactical nous to be a future England manager”. Such was Harkouk’s hex over Brighton that in one fixture the following season Venables played him even though he was injured, just to scare Mullery. Before the same match Mullery refused to announce his team until 2.45pm, just to scare Venables. They drew again. Though both teams went up that season, neither won the league — that was Mansfield’s privilege — and later that year Brighton, who had briefly been nicknamed the Dolphins, rechristened themselves the Seagulls, a direct avian response to Palace’s Eagles. After a season of consolidation in the Second Division the two teams, and their warring managers, battled for promotion again in 1978-79, and this time it was even closer. Brighton, whose transfer budget was more than double their rival’s, finished their season at the top of the Second Division table only for Palace to win a previously postponed game against Burnley the following weekend to pip them to the title by a point. Mullery later spent two seasons in charge of Palace, some achievement under Ron Noades’ trigger-happy chairmanship — Mullery was his sixth appointment in 20 months and Dave Bassett, who succeeded him in 1984, lasted only three days — but his appointment prompted fury and a short-lived boycott from fans. “By the time I got the job it was already long forgotten from my point of view,” he says now. “You’re the first person to ask me about it in the last 30 years.” Championship 2011-12 Crystal Palace Brighton & Hove Albion Championship Simon Burnton guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Plea bargain by Kabul bureau chief Samer Allawi was forced on him during six weeks in jail, his lawyer claims An al-Jazeera journalist has admitted to having ties to Hamas six weeks after being detained by the Israeli military following a visit to his family in the West Bank. Samer Allawi, the Arab TV network’s Kabul bureau chief, was released from detention on Monday after a plea bargain resulted in a suspended jail sentence and a £900 fine. Allawi was arrested on 9 August when trying to leave the West Bank via Jordan to return to Afghanistan. His lawyer told Human Rights Watch he had been threatened with physical harm while in detention for months without charge unless he admitted membership of Hamas. Under interrogation, Allawi admitted he had been recruited by Hamas in Pakistan in 1993. A military court convicted Allawi of “conspiracy to provide a service for an outlawed organisation”. Shin Bet, Israel’s intelligence agency, said Allawi had agreed “to carry out military or organisational activity as required by Hamas”. This included “criticising American actions in Afghanistan and voicing support for the Palestinian ‘resistance’”, the agency said in a statement. Salim Wakim, the journalist’s lawyer, said Allawi had refused Hamas requests, adding that his client had been sentenced for “very, very, very trivial crimes”. Following his release, Allawi said he met Hamas officials as part of his job. “There was no evidence against me,” he said. “The whole arrest episode was a charade aimed at extorting al-Jazeera. I was not the target.” He said he had been “subjected to a great deal of pressure during my arrest and the interrogations”. Last week, Human Rights Watch called on the Israeli authorities to release or charge the journalist. Hamas, which won elections in the Palestinian territories in 2006 and took control of Gaza in a bloody battle with rivals Fatah the following year, is outlawed as a terrorist organisation by Israel, the US and the EU. Al-Jazeera Hamas Israel Press freedom Journalist safety TV news Palestinian territories Television industry Middle East Newspapers & magazines Newspapers Harriet Sherwood guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Plea bargain by Kabul bureau chief Samer Allawi was forced on him during six weeks in jail, his lawyer claims An al-Jazeera journalist has admitted to having ties to Hamas six weeks after being detained by the Israeli military following a visit to his family in the West Bank. Samer Allawi, the Arab TV network’s Kabul bureau chief, was released from detention on Monday after a plea bargain resulted in a suspended jail sentence and a £900 fine. Allawi was arrested on 9 August when trying to leave the West Bank via Jordan to return to Afghanistan. His lawyer told Human Rights Watch he had been threatened with physical harm while in detention for months without charge unless he admitted membership of Hamas. Under interrogation, Allawi admitted he had been recruited by Hamas in Pakistan in 1993. A military court convicted Allawi of “conspiracy to provide a service for an outlawed organisation”. Shin Bet, Israel’s intelligence agency, said Allawi had agreed “to carry out military or organisational activity as required by Hamas”. This included “criticising American actions in Afghanistan and voicing support for the Palestinian ‘resistance’”, the agency said in a statement. Salim Wakim, the journalist’s lawyer, said Allawi had refused Hamas requests, adding that his client had been sentenced for “very, very, very trivial crimes”. Following his release, Allawi said he met Hamas officials as part of his job. “There was no evidence against me,” he said. “The whole arrest episode was a charade aimed at extorting al-Jazeera. I was not the target.” He said he had been “subjected to a great deal of pressure during my arrest and the interrogations”. Last week, Human Rights Watch called on the Israeli authorities to release or charge the journalist. Hamas, which won elections in the Palestinian territories in 2006 and took control of Gaza in a bloody battle with rivals Fatah the following year, is outlawed as a terrorist organisation by Israel, the US and the EU. Al-Jazeera Hamas Israel Press freedom Journalist safety TV news Palestinian territories Television industry Middle East Newspapers & magazines Newspapers Harriet Sherwood guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …New regime reassures Scottish prosecutors and UK police it will assist probe into bombing of Pan Am flight 103, Foreign Office says Libyan authorities have said they will co-operate with Scottish prosecutors and police investigating the Lockerbie bombing, the Foreign Office has said. The National Transitional Council (NTC) has reassured the UK government after reports suggested Libya’s interim justice minister had said the Lockerbie bombing case was “closed”. Mohammed al-Alagi was asked for his response at a press conference after Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland QC requested Libyan authorities hand over any information that could lead to a second trial over the atrocity, which killed 270 people in December 1988. Abdelbaset al-Megrahi is the only person to have been convicted of the bombing of Pan Am flight 103, which exploded over Lockerbie in Scotland. According to reports, Libya’s interim justice minister Mohammed al-Alagi, responding to news of the request, told a press conference in Tripoli: “The case is closed.” But the Foreign Office said: “NTC chairman Abdul Jalil has already assured the prime minister that the new Libyan authorities will co-operate with the UK in this and other ongoing investigations. Having spoken with the NTC we understand that this remains the case. “The police investigation into the Lockerbie bombing remains open, and the police should follow the evidence wherever it leads them.” Scottish prosecutors are seeking assistance from the NTC to gain evidence that could lead to the conviction of others involved. On Monday, the Crown Office, the prosecution service in Scotland, said it accepts Megrahi “did not act alone” and it is hopeful recent developments in Libya will mean the country will help with the inquiry. A spokesman said: “The trial court accepted that Mr Megrahi acted in furtherance of the Libyan intelligence services in an act of state-sponsored terrorism and did not act alone. “Lockerbie remains an open inquiry concerning the involvement of others with Mr
Continue reading …As they publish their own ‘alternative white paper’ for higher education, academics claim the government’s plans are fundamentally misguided Hundreds of academics have signed a document, published today, that warns of dire consequences should the government’s white paper on higher education become law. The document, In Defence of Public Higher Education, endorsed by a wide range of prominent academics, including Stefan Collini, of Cambridge University, and Howard Hotson, of Oxford, offers an alternative to the government’s vision for the sector in the form of nine propositions about higher education’s value to society. Drawing on recent research, it also argues that the changes proposed are based on ideology rather than financial necessity, and will make no lasting savings. Campaigners hope it will lead to an autumn of debate and protest over the white paper’s proposals, which are due to come into effect next year. “The hope would be that it provides a well-formulated agenda on the future of higher education, in contrast to the one the government has railroaded through,” says Simon Szreter, professor of history and public policy at the University of Cambridge, who helped to draw up the document. “It is a counter to the breathtaking speed of the government programme and its reliance on an atrociously flimsy document, the Browne Review.” Today’s publication argues that the Independent Review of Higher Education Funding, chaired by former BP chief executive Lord Browne of Madingley, and the subsequent white paper, completely ignore the public value of higher education, concentrating instead on “the private benefits to individuals in the form of higher earnings deriving from investment in their human capital, and to the ‘knowledge economy’ in terms of product development and contribution of economic growth”. It suggests that this focus on students as consumers attacks the very values the prime minister believes would reverse the “moral decline” blamed for the recent riots. And it accuses the mission groups representing different kinds of universities, including the Russell Group and the 1994 Group of leading research universities, of lack of leadership and of failing to defend the values of public higher education while for-profit providers have successfully lobbied for their own interests. Nearly 400 academic campaigners, members of professional bodies such as the British Philosophical Association, and individuals have signed the “alternative white paper”, which was drawn up over the summer by a working group led by John Holmwood, professor of sociology at the University of Nottingham and founder of the Campaign for the Public University. He says: “The people signing up are very senior academics. They are saying, ‘At last there is a voice talking about public higher education and something other than questions of economic expediency’.” The document’s nine propositions are that higher education has public as well as private benefits and these public benefits require financial support; that public universities are necessary to build and maintain confidence in public debate; that public universities have a social mission and help to ameliorate social inequality; that public higher education is part of a generational contract in which an older generation invests in the wellbeing of future generations; that public institutions providing similar programmes of study should be funded at a similar level; that education cannot be treated as a simple consumer good; that training in skills is not the same as university education – something the title of a university should recognise; that a university is a community made up of different disciplines and of different activities of teaching, research and external collaboration; and finally that universities are not only global institutions, but also serve their local and regional communities. A separate appendix makes the case that switching the costs of tuition from grants to loan-backed fees may reduce the deficit in the short term, but is an accounting trick. In the long term, debt could increase as students default or write off loan repayments, and tax revenues from those who reject higher education as too expensive are lost. It also accuses the government of wanting eventually to introduce a pricing mechanism based on how much of the loans made to students studying specific degrees at specific institutions are repaid. “The commodification of higher education is at the secret heart of the white paper,” it argues. “The government seeks a differently funded sector, one which can provide new outlets for capital that struggles to find suitable opportunities for investment elsewhere.” Publication of the document comes a week after the end of formal consultation on the white paper and amid increasing criticism of government plans for HE. Responding to the consultation, Universities UK warned of “unintended consequences for students and universities” from the proposals, with potentially adverse effects on social mobility, student choice, institutional subject mix and the future viability of some institutions”. The 1994 Group warned that high-quality places for students could be lost, and science subjects could be badly affected. The Millennium+ thinktank called for the plans to introduce a market in university places to be withdrawn, while the British Academy, the UK’s national representative body for the humanities and social sciences, said the plans could damage the international reputation of UK higher education. Howard Hotson, professor of early modern intellectual history and a founding member of the Oxford University Campaign for Higher Education, says: “We offer fantastic value for money. The UK university system is astonishingly good. There is no intellectual justification whatsoever for radically overhauling it, and if you radically overhaul it, you can guarantee to make it worse.” He calls on academics and students to join forces to oppose the moves and predicts a “winter of discontent” including actions by students and academic unions. Campaigners expect further motions of no confidence in the universities minister, David Willetts, to follow votes at Oxford, Cambridge, Leeds and Bath earlier in the summer, and want to encourage parents and the general public to join the debate. The Local Schools Network has already backed today’s document. Melissa Benn, its co-founder, says: “Education is bigger than self-interest and a race to the top. If we sacrifice the idea of the education system being at the very centre of the social fabric we will pay a price in the long term.” Stefan Collini, professor of English literature and intellectual history at Cambridge, who has written a series of critiques of government higher education policy, warns that the proposals in the white paper misunderstand what universities are about. “It’s very important that academics who see the ways in which this policy is fundamentally flawed and misguided try to explain this and work for the long-term development of a better-grounded policy,” he says. “For that reason the alternative white paper makes a very valuable contribution.” Willetts has responded to critics by arguing that the success of British universities in research has been the result of a system that places intense competition in a wider legal framework and that the government’s proposals aim to achieve the same for teaching and the student experience. In a letter published in the London Review of Books in July he “pleaded guilty to believing in choice and competition”, but said that these should be rooted in a national culture, strong institutions and a set of moral understandings. University funding University administration University teaching Lecturers Access to university Students Higher education Education policy Harriet Swain guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …